An obstetrician's opinion

[Cow Poke]

You said, in this post:

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...51#post1301551

As she also notes "Every week, I see examples of morally necessary pregnancy terminations that, under the Texas law, could put doctors in legal jeopardy."

Which is what CP was referring to in his post about the can of worms, to which you responded in this post:

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...25#post1303325

So would you compel a brain damaged fourteen year old to give birth to the child of her rapist? Or insist a woman continue with a pregnancy where the foetus had no brain and would not survive more than a few hours after delivery?

So, indeed, sweetpea (and I use that term with a great deal of sarcasm), your own source alleged that she sees these kinds of things every week and by continuing on with your charade you, by consent of agreement with her are also alleging what was said.

You just can't help yourself, can you? You make stupid, ignorant remarks and then when you are called on it you refuse to admit you screwed up.

I haven't seen anything this nutty since --- what was his name - the rabid Mormon --- TrueBoM or whatever his name was? TrueLDS? LDSTrue?

[mossrose]

I haven't seen anything this nutty since --- what was his name - the rabid Mormon --- TrueBoM or whatever his name was? TrueLDS? LDSTrue?

Can't remember. Didn't follow the Mormon forum much.

But this one is sure a piece of work.

[Cow Poke]

All she had to do was hit the quote thingy in your post and she would have seen where she had posted it. She really might be as dumb as a sack of hammers.

That, my dear friend, is a terrible insult to hammers the world over.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Are you out of your mind? You quoted her in your OP.....

Karkowsky wrote, "I see examples of morally necessary pregnancy terminations that, under the Texas law, could put doctors in legal jeopardy" She then cites some examples of the sorts of cases she has dealt with. She is not contending that she sees those exact same cases every week.

[Cow Poke]

Firstly no one has alleged that an obstetrician "sees that sort of thing every week" .....

If you have even the tiniest shred of decency or honesty, THIS would be an EXCELLENT place to show it by simply typing....

"oooops, my bad!"

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So, indeed, sweetpea (and I use that term with a great deal of sarcasm), your own source alleged that she sees these kinds of things every week

She noted that she sees "examples of morally necessary pregnancy terminations" every week and then cited some examples of the sorts of cases she has dealt with in the past.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If you have even the tiniest shred of decency or honesty, THIS would be an EXCELLENT place to show it by simply typing....

"oooops, my bad!"

You have my reply at post #274.

.

[Cow Poke]

She noted that she sees "examples of morally necessary pregnancy terminations" every week and then cited some examples of the sorts of cases she has dealt with in the past.

So why did YOU say.....

Firstly no one has alleged that an obstetrician "sees that sort of thing every week"....

Sheeeeesh, woman, make up your mind!!!!

[Cow Poke]

You have my reply at post #274.

.

Yeah, more obfuscation and dishonesty.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So why did YOU say.....



Sheeeeesh, woman, make up your mind!!!!

Because some tried to suggest that every week she sees the examples she cited. She does not.

What she does see is "examples of morally necessary pregnancy terminations" every week and those examples will be varied and diverse.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

where you made the incredibly inept attempt to argue that DUS may be harmful, therefore, should not be used in a pregnancy center setting to show a pregnant woman the baby inside her.

Firstly I have never written that DUS "should not be used in a pregnancy center setting to show a pregnant woman the baby inside her". Secondly, if you consider two academic papers on possible risks of DUS to be examples of an "incredibly inept attempt to argue that DUS may be harmful" that merely serves to illustrate a somewhat arrogant and rather uninformed viewpoint.

[Cow Poke]

Because some tried to suggest that every week she sees the examples she cited. She does not.

What she does see is "examples of morally necessary pregnancy terminations" every week and those examples will be varied and diverse.

Maybe you need to stop being such a horrendously hypocritical and be more PRECISE.

I was quoting what YOU SAID she said, dingbat!

[mossrose]

Karkowsky wrote, "I see examples of morally necessary pregnancy terminations that, under the Texas law, could put doctors in legal jeopardy" She then cites some examples of the sorts of cases she has dealt with. She is not contending that she sees those exact same cases every week.

Oh, now you are leaving words out from the article YOU posted. Because, and I quote the quote of your post:

As she also notes "Every week, I see examples of morally necessary pregnancy terminations that, under the Texas law, could put doctors in legal jeopardy."

How dishonest can you get?

[mossrose]

Because some tried to suggest that every week she sees the examples she cited. She does not.

What she does see is "examples of morally necessary pregnancy terminations" every week and those examples will be varied and diverse.

And let me repeat, I do not believe that ANY doctor sees "examples of morally necessary pregnancy termination" EVERY week! So the person in your article is lying through her teeth. And I see you follow that example.

Good grief, you are dense.

[Cow Poke]

Firstly I have never written that DUS "should not be used in a pregnancy center setting to show a pregnant woman the baby inside her".

I have never seen anybody so bloomin' STUPID with such an expansive vocabulary. Nobody claimed you SAID that -- it's what you seemed to be IMPLYING, or why else would you bring it up?

Secondly, if you consider two academic papers on possible risks of DUS to be examples of an "incredibly inept attempt to argue that DUS may be harmful" that merely serves to illustrate a somewhat arrogant and rather uninformed viewpoint.

OK, I'll type this very slowly...... the articles are about POSSIBLE risks..... absolutely NO REASON to suggest that a sonogram should not be used on a pregnant woman --- therefore, it was really really STUPID even to bring it into this discussion.

If you were NOT trying to suggest that there was a problem with using sonograms in pregnancy centers, then why did you start this idiotic derail in the first place?